Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• text_to_speech_with_optionsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'customizable speed' but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits: it doesn't specify output format (e.g., audio file, stream), permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., what's returned, format), lacks behavioral context like error handling or performance, and doesn't guide usage relative to siblings. For a tool with no structured support, more descriptive detail is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (text, voice, speed) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies speed customization but doesn't provide additional context like default values or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting text to speech with customizable speed. It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('text to speech'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_voices (which lists options) or get_model_status (which checks status). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from text_to_speech (likely a simpler version), so it's not a perfect 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose text_to_speech_with_options over text_to_speech (the likely sibling), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing to list_voices first for voice selection. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• get_model_statusB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what the status includes (e.g., 'initialized', 'loading', 'error'), whether it has side effects, or how it handles errors. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It efficiently communicates the tool's function without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what the status output entails, error handling, or dependencies on other tools. For a status-checking tool, this leaves gaps in understanding its full context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing nonexistent inputs. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't introduce confusion about parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current status of the TTS model initialization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_voices and text_to_speech by focusing on model status rather than voice listing or speech generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the model must be initialized first), typical use cases (e.g., checking readiness before text_to_speech), or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• list_voicesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists voices but does not describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or usage context. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent fully.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline expectation without requiring additional details, earning a score above the minimum.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('List all available voices') and the resource ('for text-to-speech'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_model_status' or 'text_to_speech', which might also relate to voice or model operations, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for retrieving voice options but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'text_to_speech' or 'get_model_status'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• text_to_speechB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action and output ('play it through system audio'), but fails to address key traits like permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's a read-only or destructive operation, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a text-to-speech tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., audio format, playback behavior, errors) and does not explain return values or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (text and voice) thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('convert text to speech') and the resource ('system audio'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_voices (which lists options) and text_to_speech_with_options (which offers more customization). It uses precise verbs and specifies the output mechanism.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for converting text to audio playback, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus text_to_speech_with_options or other alternatives. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.